Second and third trimester fetal ultrasound population screening for risks of preterm birth and small-size and large-size for gestational age at birth: a population-based prospective cohort study
Adult
Cohort Studies
Female
Gestational Age
Humans
Infant, Newborn
Infant, Small for Gestational Age
/ physiology
Pregnancy
Pregnancy Trimester, Second
/ physiology
Pregnancy Trimester, Third
/ physiology
Premature Birth
/ diagnostic imaging
Prenatal Care
Prospective Studies
Ultrasonography, Prenatal
/ methods
Young Adult
Cohort study
Fetal growth
Large size for gestational age
Preterm birth
Screening
Small size for gestational age
Third trimester ultrasound
Journal
BMC medicine
ISSN: 1741-7015
Titre abrégé: BMC Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101190723
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 04 2020
07 04 2020
Historique:
received:
30
09
2019
accepted:
20
02
2020
entrez:
8
4
2020
pubmed:
8
4
2020
medline:
23
9
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Preterm birth, small size for gestational age (SGA) and large size for gestational age (LGA) at birth are major risk factors for neonatal and long-term morbidity and mortality. It is unclear which periods of pregnancy are optimal for ultrasound screening to identify fetuses at risk of preterm birth, SGA or LGA at birth. We aimed to examine whether single or combined second and third trimester ultrasound in addition to maternal characteristics at the start of pregnancy are optimal to detect fetuses at risk for preterm birth, SGA and LGA. In a prospective population-based cohort among 7677 pregnant women, we measured second and third trimester estimated fetal weight (EFW), and uterine artery pulsatility and umbilical artery resistance indices as placenta flow measures. Screen positive was considered as EFW or placenta flow measure < 10th or > 90th percentile. Information about maternal age, body mass index, ethnicity, parity, smoking, fetal sex and birth outcomes was available from questionnaires and medical records. Screening performance was assessed via receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and area under the curve (AUC) along with sensitivity at different false-positive rates. Maternal characteristics only and in combination with second trimester EFW had a moderate performance for screening for each adverse birth outcome. Screening performance improved by adding third trimester EFW to the maternal characteristics (AUCs for preterm birth 0.64 (95%CI 0.61 to 0.67); SGA 0.79 (95%CI 0.78 to 0.81); LGA 0.76 (95%CI 0.75; 0.78)). Adding third trimester placenta measures to this model improved only screening for risk of preterm birth (AUC 0.72 (95%CI 0.66 to 0.77) with sensitivity 37% at specificity 90%) and SGA (AUC 0.83 (95%CI 0.81 to 0.86) with sensitivity 55% at specificity 90%). Combining second and third trimester fetal and placental ultrasound did not lead to a better performance as compared to using only third trimester results. Combining single third trimester fetal and placental ultrasound results with maternal characteristics has the best screening performance for risks of preterm birth, SGA and LGA. As compared to second trimester screening, third trimester screening may double the detection of fetuses at risk of common adverse birth outcomes.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Preterm birth, small size for gestational age (SGA) and large size for gestational age (LGA) at birth are major risk factors for neonatal and long-term morbidity and mortality. It is unclear which periods of pregnancy are optimal for ultrasound screening to identify fetuses at risk of preterm birth, SGA or LGA at birth. We aimed to examine whether single or combined second and third trimester ultrasound in addition to maternal characteristics at the start of pregnancy are optimal to detect fetuses at risk for preterm birth, SGA and LGA.
METHODS
In a prospective population-based cohort among 7677 pregnant women, we measured second and third trimester estimated fetal weight (EFW), and uterine artery pulsatility and umbilical artery resistance indices as placenta flow measures. Screen positive was considered as EFW or placenta flow measure < 10th or > 90th percentile. Information about maternal age, body mass index, ethnicity, parity, smoking, fetal sex and birth outcomes was available from questionnaires and medical records. Screening performance was assessed via receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and area under the curve (AUC) along with sensitivity at different false-positive rates.
RESULTS
Maternal characteristics only and in combination with second trimester EFW had a moderate performance for screening for each adverse birth outcome. Screening performance improved by adding third trimester EFW to the maternal characteristics (AUCs for preterm birth 0.64 (95%CI 0.61 to 0.67); SGA 0.79 (95%CI 0.78 to 0.81); LGA 0.76 (95%CI 0.75; 0.78)). Adding third trimester placenta measures to this model improved only screening for risk of preterm birth (AUC 0.72 (95%CI 0.66 to 0.77) with sensitivity 37% at specificity 90%) and SGA (AUC 0.83 (95%CI 0.81 to 0.86) with sensitivity 55% at specificity 90%). Combining second and third trimester fetal and placental ultrasound did not lead to a better performance as compared to using only third trimester results.
CONCLUSIONS
Combining single third trimester fetal and placental ultrasound results with maternal characteristics has the best screening performance for risks of preterm birth, SGA and LGA. As compared to second trimester screening, third trimester screening may double the detection of fetuses at risk of common adverse birth outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32252740
doi: 10.1186/s12916-020-01540-x
pii: 10.1186/s12916-020-01540-x
pmc: PMC7137302
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
63Subventions
Organisme : European Research Council
ID : ERC-2014-CoG-648916
Pays : International
Organisme : Diabetes Fonds
ID : 2017.81.002
Pays : International
Organisme : Hartstichting
ID : 2017T013
Pays : International
Organisme : ZonMw
ID : 543003109
Pays : International
Références
Eur J Epidemiol. 2012 Sep;27(9):739-56
pubmed: 23086283
Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Jun;49(2):257-69
pubmed: 16721105
Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Feb;119(2 Pt 1):256-61
pubmed: 22270276
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Jun 13;6:CD007529
pubmed: 28613398
Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Feb;113(2 Pt 1):451-61
pubmed: 19155920
Prenat Diagn. 2013 Oct;33(10):915-20
pubmed: 23703542
J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Apr;61(4):344-9
pubmed: 18313558
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1985 Feb 1;151(3):333-7
pubmed: 3881966
Ann Nutr Metab. 2014;65(2-3):149-55
pubmed: 25413653
Obesity (Silver Spring). 2013 May;21(5):1046-55
pubmed: 23784909
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jan;53(1):55-61
pubmed: 29573501
Hypertension. 2014 Aug;64(2):266-74
pubmed: 24866145
PLoS One. 2017 Jun 1;12(6):e0178484
pubmed: 28570613
Lancet. 2015 Jun 27;385(9987):2600-5
pubmed: 25863654
Lancet. 2015 Nov 21;386(10008):2089-2097
pubmed: 26360240
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2008 Jul 16;8:25
pubmed: 18627638
Am J Epidemiol. 2013 Apr 15;177(8):743-54
pubmed: 23479346
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Jun 29;(6):CD001451
pubmed: 26121659
Eur J Epidemiol. 2006;21(6):475-84
pubmed: 16826450
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Aug;50(2):156-166
pubmed: 27935148
Semin Perinatol. 2008 Jun;32(3):219-24
pubmed: 18482625
N Engl J Med. 2008 Jul 3;359(1):61-73
pubmed: 18596274
Br J Anaesth. 2001 Jun;86(6):822-7
pubmed: 11573590
Circulation. 2013 Nov 12;128(20):2202-10
pubmed: 24135069
Semin Perinatol. 2010 Dec;34(6):408-15
pubmed: 21094415
BJOG. 2015 Mar;122(4):518-27
pubmed: 25346493
Lancet. 2013 Aug 3;382(9890):417-425
pubmed: 23746775
J Perinat Med. 2010 May;38(3):311-8
pubmed: 20121528
PLoS One. 2016 Nov 1;11(11):e0164161
pubmed: 27802270
BMC Med. 2019 Oct 17;17(1):186
pubmed: 31619225
J Ultrasound Med. 2003 Apr;22(4):347-56; quiz 357-8
pubmed: 12693618
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Apr;31(4):388-96
pubmed: 18348183
Acta Paediatr Scand. 1991 Aug-Sep;80(8-9):756-62
pubmed: 1957592
Prenat Diagn. 2014 Aug;34(8):759-64
pubmed: 24659438
Ann Epidemiol. 2013 Jul;23(7):435-40
pubmed: 23726822
BJOG. 2011 Mar;118(4):500-9
pubmed: 21244614
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Apr;204(4):288-300
pubmed: 21215383
Biometrics. 1988 Sep;44(3):837-45
pubmed: 3203132
Int J Epidemiol. 2014 Aug;43(4):1140-53
pubmed: 24603318
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Mar;25(3):258-64
pubmed: 15717289
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2002 Sep;81(9):846-51
pubmed: 12225300
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013 Feb;166(2):133-8
pubmed: 23122032